I admit that I shared this video on Facebook for a quick shoptalk sort of laugh. Yet perhaps its dark humor comes from how grimly real it actually feels.
Those animated characters seem like coworkers we know from a recent campaign or movement. Yet the most important character in this little play isn't the clueless op behind the desk nor the jaded point person sitting before him.
It isn't even the band of befuddled and put-upon "supporters" that will be asked to urgently email every Member of Congress in an act so truly ridiculous as to be the basis of a comic one minute satire.
It's the absent boss. The one you don't see in this little play. It's a play that's about an advocacy campaign, a political movement. But it also could be about a startup. One still getting off the ground.
You've watched the video once for laughs. Now watch it a second time. What do you know about the boss, the assumptive overlord of this cartoonish operation that calls itself an advocacy team? (That, we assume is getting paid to know, care and give skilled and daily nurturing to an issue in legislative, media and opinion circles?)
Here are a few points that jumped out at me. You may have more.
1) Faux Crisis mode/urgency.
2) Siloization.
3) A complete lack of understanding of electronic and socially driven "conversation media."
4) The stink of arrogance.
Perhaps you've seen or felt all four of these. A few thoughts on each.
**Faux crisis mode. A poor manager awaits a crisis and its associated drama to emerge as the so-called leader. Crises are glamorous, and full of spit and blame. They feel like they are backed by stunning film scores. Crises accord importance and conspiracy to every wayward glance and step. A manager that doesn't enjoy his/her everyday cause may create crises to get this sort of high, this sort of excuse to feel power and point fingers wildly.
Or he/she may just shirk, dine and golf until something happens to fall from the shelf inadvertently. In the first case, a crisis may be manufactured. In the second case, it is the product of negligence. Sometimes the same campaign can suffer both.
**Siloization. A problem with some political and cause campaigns: The higherups stay very high up. They do not know their cause or customer. They're merely using it to self-brand or hobnob. Such managers do not manage - they simply bathe in the rights and entitlements of their position. They appear and they disappear. Their ventures from their cushioned ubersilo are just ceremonial walkthroughs - to see if people look subservient and busy. The highest levels of the campaign do not touch the ground or vice versa. Nobody knows anybody.
Since campaigns and causes seek voters and grassroots expansion, they are by necessity horizontally arranged. There must be clear knowledge of the edge coming from the center - and clear knowledge from the center coming out to the edge. Constant interactivity equals efficiency. A lack of interactivity is never productive. It not only misaligns message, it also may result in duplicative spending and wasted volunteer hours. In a word? Chaos. In a message driven movement of any kind, this is point one.
That's not happening here in this one minute video clip. The edges - that being the supporter level, have not even gotten contacted in three years. It's comical. Now that's one tall cushiony vertical silo.
** Social and electronic "conversation media". Social media is a conversation. Not a broadcast. Perhaps that's obvious to you, but surprisingly, some people think that using social media means using an electronic bull horn, saying the same condescending slogan over and over, and expecting people to like it and follow you. That's exactly what social media is not.
The funniest and saddest part of this video clip is the mere idea that the boss could consider the effort of harassing members of Congress with spam - the same silly message, over and over - as an effective use of time and technology. We don't even have to ask if that boss knows how to use Facebook or Twitter. Or how to curate online content. We know she doesn't.
Another disappointment to note in non 'social media friendly' campaign managers: They were often trained in a long-ago yester-era where high touch media cost a lot of money. They think that more dollars means more message. Now in a mega statewide or nationwide media airwar, this can still be a huge factor. For a grassroots movement of the citizenry? The low to no cost world of social media, done right, can be far more effective and legitimate than high cost ink or air. In such case, too much fundraising can become a wasteful act, a tactical falldown that can take away from the core mission of a movement.
It can doom it at a very critical time. With the volunteer stakeholders, with the media, with Congress - and yes, even with donors.
**The fourth one? Is self explanatory. Remember the bully at school recess? Why was he or she mean to you? Because he or she was scared and did not play well with others. Because of their lack of skill, they had to change the context of what that playtime looked like.
Don't buy the act. If a so called leader of a cause has to be snobby to you, they've got something to hide.
Move along. There's something better to support.
If that cause cares about you? Well you're in conversation with them already. On social media, right now. And when they ask for your help? It's a friend asking a friend. One to one. There's trust and legitimacy. Everyone knows everybody. Hard to see that failing.